Gameness in humans!

Correct...

Human language is unique to any form of animal communication. For example, with human language I can describe something that you have never seen, and yet you would recognize it when you saw it.

This is a lot different then animal communication, for example a "danger" call with a programmed response, or a figure 8 dance to express the location of food (with no other impact on behavior).

There has been quite a bit of scientific study both on human language and on animal communication. I could refer you to Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" which is a excellent introduction to the subject from an expert in the field.

I don't get the reluctance to say that human's are unique in some respects. We are the only animal with literature, electronics or the Internet. Of course this doesn't mean we are superior, we can't digest grass, fly on our own, breath underwater, or even get each other to go to precise locations with figure 8 dances.

Also, let's establish what constitutes science in linguistics. Linguistics certainly defines itself as a science and it is respected in scientific communities. It is backed by scientific processes and research is carefully controlled and peer reviewed.

The science says that language is a uniquely human trait that has clear measurable differences from any other type of animal communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language

Such a claim is certainly conventient for linguists. Any debate is made child's play by simply excluding all objections to your a priori assumptions.

To this I would classically reply with Plato´s reminiscence...that is, that you cannot see what you do not have already...all language is representation, and in that sense communication, now there are more concrete or abstract forms to it.. to my view is that simple...while a "rock" "speaks" its "force" around other objects to communicate itself, its presence and its effect, and it does so "spontaneously", an animal with some sense of awareness in its language expresses is mood or how it feels presently, and not just in a passive manner.
For instance when a dog barks threatening another animal, is barking is meant to represent a potential offensive action, which the other animal can imagine to some extent, that is, to abstractly in a primary level, being actually able to anticipate a consequence, which in turn is not objectively clear...and all in all, it still is a "gravitational reaction" to the environmental context, just like the rock "processing" and also being "processed "by the world around, of course, while it all goes in another layer of complexity or "field" of events...with human beings the capacity for abstraction goes a step further but still the structure is the same.
I am not at all convinced of any particular special case on Human language aside a step forward in complexity and utterly urge you to avoid "boxing" it aside...Science is about bringing together and not setting apart...that form of reasoning amounts only to bureaucracy...

(I myself, came from an Humanistic classical formal education set... nevertheless I am actually proud that I find a way out of its "natural deficiency´s" while still taking what is best to it, "Civilization" that is...and so I find myself finally out of subjective "Tail telling" paradigms and more into an "hard" approach in as much as I can with my own intrinsic background limitations...)

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

There are drones among honey bees whose only job is to find flowering plants ready to be "harvested." When they find any, they return to the hive, and do a little dance in the entrance to the hive. The dance indicates that they have found flowering plants ready to harvest, and describes the direction and distance to them, based on the position of the sun. What's more, it's based on the position of the sun at the time they do the dance, not at the time when they found the plants. Then they fly off to look for more, while droves of other drones fly off u erringly to the the reported flowering plants, even if they've never been there before. This has been confirmed by the careful research of reputable scientists (at whose altar Max worships).

Hmm . . . how does that stack up to the statement: "For example, with human language I can describe something that you have never seen, and yet you would recognize it when you saw it."

You are completely missing the point. The honeybee example was first proposed (as far as I know) by Steven Pinker in The Language Instinct. He used it to make the exact opposite point you are trying to make.

The honey be has evolved to do the figure 8 dance. The bee has special nerve formations that have developed specifically to pass and receive information with the figure 8 dance. This is instinctual way to gather food that provokes a pre-programmed behavioral response. It is no more language then ant pheremones. It is not a open ended way to communicate any thought or information, like human language is.

Let's look at it from the honeybees point of view. The honey bee has a genetic skill that it has evolved with that you don't have. No matter how much you practiced, you can't do what the honeybee does. You can dance like in a figure 8 while wiggling your posterior all you want. There is no way you are going to pass this useful information, nor will other humans be able to locate a food source this way.

Humans and honeybees have different skills. This is because we evolve with different skills. We can not only see this by studying behavior, but we also have the tools to study the brain structures used in language. The structures used for instinctual behaviors, such as a honeybee's dance are completely different. It is like comparing arms to wings.

I don't know if you hold evolutionary science in as much disdain as you do linguistics. But take it for what it is worth....

Do you really mean to say this? If so, then we are talking about completely different things.

To me science is a way to ask question and gain understanding as objectively as possible using careful observation, rigorous testing with a process that answers challenges with measurable facts.

I think you clearly understood I was directing to Occam´s Razor and not to banal assessment...

My training is in science, not in philosophy. I understand Occam's Razor (as it relates to science), but no, I still don't understand your statement about science.

A bark is not a word. I can say this from experience because it is human nature to let out an utterance in reaction to pain or anger. I even communicate with dogs on this level-- yelling "Hey!" at a dog will get them to stop what they are doing and realize I am upset.

Science will tell you that that the brain structures are used to yell in pain or fear (as animals do) are completely different from the structures we use to process and create language. We know this from studies that measure brain activity with different stimuli.

The amygdala plays a big role in vocalizing fear. It is not a significant part of human language. There are studies that show that vocalization of fear is cross cultural (i.e. all humans will make the sames sounds no matter what culture they are from).

1 - Apply the same principles where you find the same algorithms...undress the cloth of corporate thinking and lobby and cross information...give you a quick example : Darwinism in language !...get it ? hope so...

2 - You are to distinguish between the "word" and the emotion it carries first of all...a word conveys meaning and intention, and of course there are several layers for that...besides I go well beyond animals on the subject... as language is a Universal trait...Reality itself could be seen as binary language program in a "Matrix" like perspective (not to laugh at)...read something upon Holographic Universe...Your perspective to where I stand is "old"...its Anthropocentric approach does n´t sound that much scientific to me...but anyway you´re entitled to believe what you will...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

...more:
...Language does not need subjects...it needs "processors" ! (as meaning is Function after all)
...be it you the dog or the damn rock...3 different types of processors working at 3 different layers of complexity. Simple !

None of what you allege here is any different than what i have already alluded to as winning an argument by assuming your premises before the discussion begins. If you define language as a means of communication unique to humans, it's hardly surprising that you are then able to allege that only humans possess language.

The "honey bee example" was not first proposed by Mr. Pinker. It was first used in an argument about the exclusivity of language by Mr. Pniker. Mr. Pinker did not do the research which revealed this behavior on the part of bees.

And by the way, i am skeptical of many claims to the authoritative mantle of science, it is true. But your snotty comment about me holding linguistics in disdain is derived from your premises having been challenged, not any evidence you can adduce that i hold science in disdain. You don't like what i've written, so characterize in a manner which it seems you hope will make me look like some kind of Luddite crackpot when it comes to science.

Finally, what is called Occam's Razor is pretty simple: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem--causes are not to be multiplied unnecessarily. There's no special application of such a principle to any particular subject. It means the same thing whether one considers matters scientific or matters philosophical.

Human evolution seems to be speeding up. New genes seem to be emerged in the last 10,000 years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/10/us-evolution-human-idUSN1043228620071210